BCC SIC

Introduction

The Department for Transport has published details of its preferred route for the new high speed railway link between London and Birmingham and the 5 month consultation process runs until 29th July 2011.

Proposals for a high speed railway through Buckinghamshire will, without adequate crossings, have substantial negative impacts on the public rights of way network; affecting route connectivity, public amenity and the quiet enjoyment of the countryside. Each of the three proposed routes will cut-off green, non-vehicular sustainable transport corridors between communities, their services and routes to school and work. The many trails promoted by the County Council and other organizations would be greatly affected; and there will be a knock-on effect to the rural economy.

The 3,300km network of public rights of way in Buckinghamshire is a considerable economic asset, an important part of the county highway infrastructure and a key element within the county’s tourism sector. Maintaining a fully integrated network is essential to protect opportunities for the public to both safely enjoy the countryside for recreation and health; and for non-vehicular access to services and between communities.

The council is continually striving to improve the connectivity of the network and to improve accessibility for the less able. These themes are of primary importance when assessing the impacts of development on the network.

Initially this report provides an assessment of the likely impacts on the ROW network. Further it sets out the broad principles that would need to be adopted should the government decide to proceed with HS2.

HS2 Ltd are requested to take on-board this baseline report and to ensure that Buckinghamshire County Council and relevant partners are engaged in the design and implementation of alternatives or mitigation at an early stage of any development for HS2 proceeding.

Route severance

The number of public Rights of Way directly severed is outlined in the Table 1 below. In addition, data is also shown for 200m, 500m and 1000m corridors which may be affected by visual and noise impacts. Please note: a 200m corridor is equal to 100m on either side of the proposed railway line; and ‘permissive paths’ and unrecorded rights have not been included in this ‘buffer analysis’. Each public footpath has a number, recorded on a legal document called the Definitive Map and Statement. In Table 1, ‘whole routes’ have been counted rather than each footpath ‘link’.
Table 1: Severance and impact summary on the Buckinghamshire Rights of Way network along Preferred Route 3.

Impacts to promoted routes and Ridgeway National Trail

Buckinghamshire benefits greatly from The Ridgeway National Trail passing through it. The route is not directly affected by HS2, as it passes over a ‘Green Bridge’ along Pound Street, Wendover, but there will be noise and visual impacts.

A number of ROW routes, promoted by Buckinghamshire County Council and other organizations, will be directly affected by proposed HS2 lines, potentially having their routes severed. These include the Chiltern Link, South Bucks Way, Cross Bucks Way, Thame Valley Walk and Icknield Way. The Chiltern Way is heavily promoted by the Chiltern Society and the route is directly affected at Wendover Dean.

Tackling routes severed and affected by HS2 proposals

If the HS2 route is given the go-ahead, HS2 Ltd should have an early dialogue with the County Council to discuss underpasses, bridges and proposed diverted routes.

Prior to planning, design and construction, each path should be walked by county officers and HS2 design or structural engineers to imagine the railway line constructed on the ground and how the network will fit with options for crossings and diversions. Following this process, continual dialogue should be maintained during construction, to account for issues such as subsidence, unaccounted springs and drainage problems. The Council would also wish to enter dialogue with local communities on possible local impacts and would look to HS2 to support the necessary processes.

Where it is agreed that the construction of a bridge or underpass is not possible, a diversion should be made to the nearest crossing point. The council would seek diverted routes to be diagonal in order that they are more direct. Consultation with adjoining landowners will be required in such cases. Failing this, it is important that ‘L-shaped’ diversions are installed, using part of or an extension along the HS2 corridor leading from the footpath/HS2 junction to the nearest crossing point. The Council would require a minimum specification of 4m width.

The County Council would seek to ensure that any ROW that are proposed to be ‘stopped-up’ or diverted are done so under Act of Parliament and that this is not left for the County Council to pursue through the Highways Act 1980. It would be a requirement that a County officer be given the opportunity to speak at any parliamentary sub-committee where Buckinghamshire associated Rights of Way are being discussed.

It is recommended that user organizations be consulted at each stage of HS2 planning when path diversions are being proposed. These should include Parish Councils, The Ramblers, SUSTRANS, the Cyclists Touring Club and British Horse Society. The standard ‘test’ for diverting ROW should be adopted, that is path diversions should ‘not be substantially less convenient to the public’. There will be a requirement on HS2 Ltd to support any such processes that will arise as a result of ROW impacts.

Any structures required as part of permanent diversions, such as pedestrian and kissing gates, should be of British Standard design. Surfaces should be laid in situations of high public use or poor drainage and ramps constructed leading up to all bridges. Paths should be accessible to all-terrain mobility scooters. It is a requirement that a County officer be given suitable opportunity to discuss design and proposals.

Underpasses and bridges

Routes that are an integral part of the local footpath and bridleway network, together with promoted routes, should be given a high priority with options to bridge or cross via an underpass, on or near their current line.

Underpasses should be lit, with wide entrances and generous headroom, particularly on bridleways where horse riders and cyclists need to be accommodated. They should be wide enough for the public to feel safe and not hemmed-in or intimidated.

Bridges should have the required parapet heights for walkers, cyclists and horse riders, depending on the four types of usage: footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways and byways. It is a requirement that a County officer be given suitable opportunity to discuss design and proposals.

‘Dead ends’

It is an aspiration to have no ‘dead end’ ROW. After the Kent HS1 was constructed a number of paths were deemed ‘not needed for public use’ and had to be stopped-up under s.118 Highways Act 1980. This left Kent County Council with the financial burden of making the necessary legal orders and publishing them in local newspapers. Following consultation, it is a requirement in Buckinghamshire that all ROW can, at the very least, be diverted along corridors adjacent to the line, which could be screened with native vegetation. If there are instances where paths need to be stopped-up under s.118 Highways Act, this process should be funded in its entirety by HS2 Ltd.

Temporary diversions during construction

It is assumed that paths closed, as part of temporary diversions, in order that construction can take place, but be reopened post-construction, will be set-out in the Parliamentary Act.

Such diversions will need to take into account public convenience. Any structures required as part of temporary diversions, such as pedestrian and kissing gates, should be of British Standard design and surfaces be laid in situations of high public use or poor drainage. Signposting should be maintained by HS2.